Corporate governance and earnings management at large U.S. bank holding companies

This paper examines whether corporate governance mechanisms affect earnings and earnings management at the largest publicly traded bank holding companies in the United States. We first find that performance, earnings management, and corporate governance are endogenously determined. Thus, OLS estimation can lead to biased coefficients and a simultaneous equations approach is used. We find that CEO pay-for-performance sensitivity (PPS), board independence, and capital are positively related to earnings and that earnings, board independence, and capital are negatively related to earnings management. We also find that PPS is positively related to earnings management. Finally, PPS and board independence are positively related and the relationship is bidirectional. While both PPS and board independence are associated with higher earnings, our results indicate that more independent boards appear to constrain the earnings management that greater PPS compels.     

Corporate Governance and the Cost of Capital: Evidence from Australian Companies

The authors examine a sample of large Australian companies over a 10‐year period with the aim of analyzing the role that firm‐level corporate governance mechanisms such as insider ownership and independent boards play in explaining a company's cost of capital. The Australian corporate system offers a unique environment for assessing the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. Australian companies have board structures and mechanisms that are similar in design to Anglo‐Saxon boards while offering a striking contrast to those of German and Japanese boards. At the same time, however, the Australian market for corporate control is much less active as a corrective mechanism against management entrenchment than its U.S. and U.K. counterparts, making the role of internal governance mechanisms potentially more important in Australia than elsewhere. The authors report that greater insider ownership, the presence of institutional blockholders, and independent boards are all associated with reductions in the perceived risk of a firm, thereby leading investors to demand lower rates of return on capital. In so doing, the study provides evidence of the important role of corporate governance in increasing corporate values.     

Legal protection of investors,corporate governance,and the cost of equity capital

This study examines the effect of firm-level corporate governance on the cost of equity capital in emerging markets and how the effect is influenced by country-level legal protection of investors. We find that firm-level corporate governance has a significantly negative effect on the cost of equity capital in these markets. In addition, this corporate governance effect is more pronounced in countries that provide relatively poor legal protection. Thus, in emerging markets, firm-level corporate governance and country-level shareholder protection seem to be substitutes for each other in reducing the cost of equity. Our results are consistent with the finding from McKinsey's surveys that institutional investors are willing to pay a higher premium for shares in firms with good corporate governance, especially when the firms are in countries where the legal protection of investors is weak.     

THE ACTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ITS EFFECT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LARGE PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATION

In recent years, boards of directors have become more active and independent of management in pursuing shareholder interests. But, up to this point, there has been little empirical evidence that active boards help companies produce higher rates of return for their shareholders. In this article, after describing the new board activism, the authors argue that past failures to document an association between independent boards and superior corporate performance can be explained by two features of the research: its concentration on periods prior to the 1990s (when most boards were largely irrelevant) and its use of unreliable proxies (such as a minimum percentage of outside directors) for a well-functioning board.
The authors hypothesize that an independent and resourceful board takes steps that require management to increase earnings available to investors. To test this hypothesis, the performance of a sample of large U.S. corporations was examined over the period 1991-1995 using two proxies for the "professionalism" of each company's board: (1) the letter grades (A+ to F) assigned by CalPERS for corporate governance; and (2) a "presence" or "absence" grade based on three key indicators of professional board behavior. Both of these governance metrics were associated in statistically significant ways with superior corporate performance, as measured by earnings in excess of cost of capital and net of the industry average. While acknowledging that such results do not prove causation, the authors conclude that, in the first half of the 1990s, corporations with active and independent boards added significantly more value for shareholders than those with passive, "rubber-stamp" boards.     

Do corporate governance attributes affect adverse selection costs? Evidence from seasoned equity offerings

We examine the relation between corporate governance attributes and perceived information asymmetry. In a sample of seasoned equity offerings between 1996 and 2001, we find that board independence, size of the audit committee, and officer and director ownership mitigate the negative effect of the equity offering announcement on share prices. These results are consistent with the notion that investors perceive certain governance systems to better align manager and shareholder incentives, which improves firm access to capital markets.     

The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world

We study the role of institutional investors around the world using a comprehensive data set of equity holdings from 27 countries. We find that all institutional investors have a strong preference for the stock of large firms and firms with good governance, while foreign institutions tend to overweight firms that are cross-listed in the U.S. and members of the Morgan Stanley Capital International World Index. Firms with higher ownership by foreign and independent institutions have higher firm valuations, better operating performance, and lower capital expenditures. Our results indicate that foreign and independent institutions, with potentially fewer business ties to firms, are involved in monitoring corporations worldwide.     

Capital inflows,equity issuance activity,and corporate investment

This paper uses issuance-level data to study how equity capital inflows that enter emerging market economies affect equity issuance and corporate investment. It shows that foreign inflows are strongly correlated with country-level issuance. The relation especially reflects the behavior of large firms. To identify supply-side shocks, capital inflows into each country are instrumented with exogenous changes in other countries’ attractiveness to foreign investors. Shifts in the supply of foreign capital are important drivers of increased equity inflows. Instrumented contemporaneous and lagged capital inflows lead large firms to raise new equity, which they use to fund investment.     

Corporate board and board committee independence,firm performance,and family ownership concentration: An analysis based on Hong Kong firms

This study examines whether the relationship between corporate board and board committee independence and firm performance is moderated by the concentration of family ownership. Based on a sample of Hong Kong firms, we find no significant association between the independence of corporate boards or board committees and firm performance in family firms, whereas board independence is positively associated with firm performance in non-family firms. Additionally, our findings show that the proportion of independent directors on the corporate boards of family firms is lower than that of non-family firms, but we find no significant difference in the representation of independent directors on the key committees of corporate boards between family and non-family firms. Overall, these results suggest that the “one size fits all” approach required by the regulatory authorities for appointing independent directors on corporate boards may not necessarily enhance firm performance, especially for family firms. Thus, the requirement to appoint independent directors to the corporate boards of family firms needs to be reconsidered.     

CORPORATE BOARDS AND BANK LOAN CONTRACTING

We investigate the role of corporate boards in bank loan contracting. We find that when corporate boards are more independent, both price and nonprice loan terms (e.g., interest rates, collateral, covenants, and performance‐pricing provisions) are more favorable, and syndicated loans comprise more lenders. In addition, board size, audit committee structure, and other board characteristics influence bank loan prices. However, they do not consistently affect all nonprice loan terms except for audit committee independence. Our study provides strong evidence that banks recognize the benefits of board monitoring in mitigating information risk ex ante and controlling agency risk ex post, and they reward higher quality boards with more favorable loan contract terms.     

Board of Directors and CSR in Banking: The Moderating Role of Bank Regulation and Investor Protection Strength

This paper brings together research on boards of directors as the backbone of corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in the banking industry. The underlying idea is that some characteristics of bank boards, in particular independence and gender diversity, may impact the CSR commitments of banks. By making use of a sample of 159 banks in nine countries during the period 2004–2010, our empirical evidence suggests that banks with more independent directors and more female members on their boards incline toward socially responsible behaviour. Our results also suggest that institutional factors play a significant role in these effects. They show that in greater regulatory and stronger investor protection environments, board independence and gender diversity have more influence on the social behaviour of banks.     

Audit committee financial expertise,corporate governance,and the voluntary switch from auditor-provided to non-auditor-provided tax services

A prime objective of the SOX is to safeguard auditor independence. We investigate the relation between audit committee quality, corporate governance, and audit committees' decision to switch from permissible auditor-provided tax services. We find that firms with more independent boards, audit committees with greater accounting financial expertise, higher stock ownership by directors and institutions, that separate the CEO and Chairman of the board positions, and with higher tax to audit fee ratios are more likely to switch to a non-auditor provider. Further, we document that firms are more likely to switch prior to issuing equity. We find no evidence that broad financial expertise on audit committees is related to the switch decision, suggesting that the SEC's initial narrow definition of expertise is more consistent with the objective of the SOX. Overall, our results suggest that accounting financial expertise and strong corporate governance contribute to enhanced audit committee monitoring of auditor independence.     

Equity market liberalization and corporate governance

Equity market liberalizations open up domestic stock markets to foreign investors. A puzzle in the literature is why developing countries exhibit relatively small financial impacts associated with liberalizations. We use cross-firm variation in corporate governance at the time of the official liberalization of the equity market in Korea to test whether governance can explain the extent to which firms benefit when countries liberalize. The results show that better-governed firms experience significantly greater stock price increases upon equity market liberalization. Following the liberalization in Korea, foreign ownership in firms with strong corporate governance was significantly higher than that in firms with weak governance. Better-governed firms also exhibit higher rates of physical capital accumulation after liberalization.     

Does international experience of managers bring financing benefits? Evidence from the cost of equity capital

Using a sample of Chinese firms, this study examines whether and how managers’ overseas experience affects a firm’s cost of equity capital. We document a negative association between managers’ overseas experience and the cost of equity capital. Mechanism analyses indicate that companies with returnee managers have better information quality and lower systematic risk; more institutional investors, media reports, and analysts following; and higher stock liquidity, all of which lead to a lower cost of equity capital. Further analyses show that chief executive officers (CEOs) with foreign experience have a more significant impact on the cost of capital than non-CEO managers with foreign experience and that managers’ overseas work experience has a more significant impact on the cost of capital than their overseas education. We also find that the impact of managers’ overseas experience is more pronounced when that experience is gained in common law countries compared to code law countries but weaker for state-owned enterprises and firms that are cross-listed or have foreign institutional investors. Overall, the results suggest that managers’ knowledge, skills, and ethical values imprinted from overseas experience, plus eyeball effects from media and analyst attention, can reduce the cost of equity capital.     

Board reforms and the cost of equity: International evidence

We examine the impact of corporate board reforms on the cost of equity (COE) using a sample of data in 41 countries for the period from 1992 to 2012. We find a significant increase in the COE after board reforms worldwide. This effect is eased for firms in countries under a comply-or-explain reform approach, as well as for firms in emerging countries. We further conclude that board reforms involving board independence, audit committee and auditor independence, and the separation of the CEO and Chairman positions, result in increases in the COE. Our results suggest that board reforms are considered inefficient to mitigate agency problems.     

Does Board Independence Matter in Companies with a Controlling Shareholder?

A number of studies have reported value discounts for listed companies in countries that provide weak legal protection to minority shareholders. Such studies typically attribute these discounts to the ability, and the well‐documented tendency, of controlling shareholders to extract a disproportionate share of corporate resources for “private benefits.” This tendency and the resulting discounts create a dilemma for those controlling shareholders intent on maximizing value for not just themselves, but all shareholders: How can such controlling shareholders assure their minority shareholders that they will not exploit their power to expropriate resources and so eliminate the discount from their companies' shares? This article investigates the possibility that such discounts can be reduced by appointing boards of directors made up of individuals who are independent of the controlling shareholders. Based on the systematic analysis of some 800 companies representing 22 countries, the authors' recent study reports that corporate values are consistently higher when boards are more independent of controlling shareholders—and that this relationship is especially strong in those countries that afford fewer rights to minority shareholders. What is likely to cause controlling shareholders to appoint more independent directors—a change that, after all, effectively limits the controlling shareholders' power and “degrees of freedom”? The answer provided by the authors is that board independence is most likely to be pursued by companies with controlling shareholders that also have major growth opportunities that must be funded mainly with outside equity.     

DOES BOARD INDEPENDENCE MATTER FOR CORPORATE INSURANCE HEDGING?

We test the effect of board independence on corporate purchases of property insurance. We find that board independence increases the incidence of property insurance use but does not have a significant effect on the extent of property insurance use given that a firm decides to insure its assets. These findings are consistent with the argument that: (1) more independent boards view it necessary to have property insurance to manage asset‐loss risks and (2) excessive insurance or insurance purchases induced by managerial risk aversion and/or self‐interest does not benefit shareholders and so may not be supported by independent boards.     

Board size and corporate performance: evidence from European countries

This paper examines the effects of board size on corporate performance across a number of European economies. Agency models suggest that large boards may destroy corporate value. Our fixed effects econometric evidence demonstrates that the effect of board size on corporate performance is generally negative. A negative effect is isolated for all five European countries in question when performance is measured as return on equity; this inverse relationship is more difficult to isolate using market-based measures of performance.     

U.S. Corporate Governance: Accomplishments and Failings A Discussion with Michael Jensen and Robert Monks

Two of America's most prominent shareholder activists discuss three major issues surrounding the U.S. corporate governance system: (1) the case for increasing shareholder “democracy” by expanding investor access to the corporate proxy; (2) lessons for public companies in the success of private equity; and (3) the current level and design of CEO pay. On the first of the three subjects, Robert Monks suggests that the U.S. should adopt the British convention of the “extraordinary general meeting,” or “EGM,” which gives a majority of shareholders who attend the meeting the right to remove any or all of a company's directors “with or without cause.” Such shareholder meetings are permitted in virtually all developed economies outside the U.S. because, as Monks goes on to say, they represent “a far more efficient and effective solution than the idea of having shareholders nominate people for the simple reason that even very involved, financially sophisticated fiduciaries are not the best people to nominate directors.” Moreover, according to both Jensen and Monks, corporate boards in the U.K. do a better job than their U.S. counterparts of monitoring top management on behalf of shareholders. In contrast to the U.S., where the majority of companies continue to be run by CEO/Chairmen, over 90% of English companies are now chaired by outside directors, contributing to “a culture of independent‐minded chairmen capable of providing a high level of oversight.” In the U.S., by contrast, most corporate directors continue to view themselves as “employees of the CEO.” And, as a result, U.S. boards generally fail to exercise effective oversight and control until outside forces—often in the form of activist investors such as hedge funds and private equity—bring about a “crisis.” In companies owned and run by private equity firms, by contrast, top management is vigorously monitored and controlled by a board made up of the firm's largest investors. And the fact that the rewards to the operating heads of successful private equity‐controlled firms are typically multiples of those received by comparably effective public company CEOs suggests that the problem with U.S. CEO pay is not its level, but its lack of correlation with performance.     

An Analysis of Changes in Board Structure during Corporate Governance Reforms

This study examines the evolution of company board structure during a period of corporate governance reform. Using data over a time period following the publication of the Cadbury Report (1992) we present evidence of an increase in the independence of UK boards, as measured by an increased willingness to employ independent non‐executive directors, and to separate the positions of the CEO and the Chairman of the Board. In examining the determinants of these changes, we find that boards change more readily in response to changes in managerial control, equity issuance and corporate performance than changes in the firm‐specific operating environment of companies.     

How do investment patterns of independent and captive private equity funds differ? Evidence from Germany

Empirical literature emphasizes a positive contribution of private equity investors, which results from their combined provision of capital, monitoring, and management support. The aim of this study is to show that these previous results, which are based mostly on the analysis of US independent closed-end private equity funds, cannot be generalized since the private equity industry should not be treated as homogenous. We argue that it is necessary to distinguish between different types of private equity providers because their differing governance structures, strategic goals and experiences have a decisive influence on their value adding activities. The results of this study—which uses a data set of 179 German private equity-backed companies—are consistent with the conjecture that independent and corporate private equity providers tend to have a more pronounced role in corporate governance and monitoring of the companies they finance, than bank-dependent and governmental funds which often serve only as bridge investors.